During the past two years, Peter Boghossian, assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University (PSU), James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose (both independent scholars) concocted 20 absurd articles employing trendy terminology to validate unreasonable conclusions, and attempted to have them published in outstanding journals in fields covering gender, queer, and fat topics. In October 2018, when they took their investigation public, seven pieces had been accepted, other seven were still being inspected in diverse phases of the review process, and six had been rejected. Repudiating 'western astronomy' as discriminatory and imperialist, one of their outright crazy papers pleads for physics departments to conduct research into feminist astrology or perform interpretative dance. Other papers make shocking claims such as a canine rape culture was observed in a Portland dog park or men who masturbate while brooding over a woman without her permission commit sexual violence. A piece recommends severe measures to compensate the 'privilege' of white undergraduates, for example, teaching staff should perform patterns of 'experiential reparations', by asking socially advantaged students to remain silent, or chaining them to the floor. Another indicates that the word bodybuilding is exclusionary and thus 'fat bodybuilding, as a fat-inclusive politicized performance' would be more appropriate, while a bogus paper is to some extent made up of a reworked passage from Hitler's Mein Kampf. This hoax brings to light the shoddy standards of the scholarly outlets that put out such pablum, but it also illustrates the degree to which some of them are compliant to allow bias if it satisfies arguably progressive objectives. The hoaxers succeeded in publishing articles in highprofile journals in the set of fields that addresses topics of race, gender, and identity, but the outstanding outlets of more established disciplines rejected their submissions. 1 Boghossian et al. maintain that academic performance based not as much upon discovering truth but especially dealing with social grievances is purposefully consolidated in particular fields within the humanities whose shared aim is to problematize features of culture meticulously, undertaking confirmations of power inequities and maltreatment deep-seated in identity. Boghossian et al.'s paper-producing methodology proceeded with a proposal that examined their epistemological or ethical implications with the topic and then attempted to harmonize the available peer-reviewed literature to support it, getting some tiny proportion of nonsense or nefariousness (something meaningless and/or deeply unethical) to be suitable at the topmost levels of enlightened integrity within the field. Then they adjusted the current scholarship so that their papers get placed in the donnish canon (i.e. outstanding peer-reviewed journals in gender studies and associated domains that may be vulnerable to a sheer hoax provided that it exploits their moral predispositions and well-liked academic jargon). Bo...